Daily reminder: the french revolution was the most shit tier event in human history

>the revolution that was about having an autism attack over taxes to pay for a war that was in your benefit was the only good one

Yes.

Bait

You're wrong, it made us free

>this is what niggerfrogs actually balieve
ho-ho-ho!

suppose you are an academe in pre-revolution france. you see the following problems:

>famines for the past six years
>an empty treasury coming out of a failed war
>tax system that puts the burden on the poor and excuses the rich
>recalcitrant king who is worsening food problem by clinging to foreign holdings and pushing away reformists
>corrupt church preaching servility and ignorance
>peasants rioting due to famine
>the press is censored, political enemies are locked away, and the estates general, the only avenue you have to get the government together to listen to you, hasn't convened for over a century

do you think you'd want to continue along the 'gradual reform' route while your countrymen suffer? or maybe, just maybe, you'd be a little keen on those revolutionary ideas that took hold overseas?

Correct, fuck Nationalism.

>France goes collectivist

Why are retards allowed to have computers?

Not to mention that the King and his ministers lied about the problem.

The more I read about Louis XVI the more I think he's a fucking idiot. He constantly tries to undermine the reforms to a point that they just say "we gave you so many chances to join us and now we have to kill you".

>I went to a French Catholic school

Thank you Burke!
Freemasons and Jews too

...

If the smell of atheism means the shedding of tired and wayward monarchies, atheism smells pretty good.

>event that gave rise to Napoleon
>bad
Even if you're a monarchist, you should still like the French revolution for birthing one of the greatest monarchs in history.

>jewpolian
>good
Hahahah

BULLSHIT

The so called pleb created the Catholic and Royal Army, it was the Bourgeoisie and the Army (mostly composed of Free masons) who made the Revolution

>The so called pleb created the Catholic and Royal Army
Supported by a minority of the people concentrated in one region.

>the Revolution
Supported by most people all over France.

If the Revolution was really a tyranical movement that had been forced on the people, it would have never been so successful at surviving for 2 decades while against most of Europe.

>Supported by a minority of the people concentrated in one region.

"""""Education""""" Nationale everyone

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armées_catholiques_et_royales

>Supported by most people all over France.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
We(True French) crushed you(Cuckrisians) and your Commune, once for all.

>If the Revolution was really a tyranical movement that had been forced on the people, it would have never been so successful at surviving for 2 decades while against most of Europe.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Noyade de Nantes
Grande et Petite Terreur
And so on

>famines for the past six years

There was one famine in Louis XVI's reign, in 1788.

>recalcitrant king who is worsening food problem by clinging to foreign holdings and pushing away reformists

Louis XVI gave heavily to charity and sold off large chunks of royal holdings in 1788 to provide food for people, and also pushed forward with Parmentier's experiments with potatoes as a possible resolution. The point of convening the Assembly of Notables and the Estates General was to find the best way to reform.

>Not to mention that the King and his ministers lied about the problem.

The ministers lied to the King about the problem. They presented him with false reports, only for an assblasted Necker to turn around and publish the real reports after he got sacked as a middle finger to Louis.

>He constantly tries to undermine the reforms

Almost all of the initial revolutionary reforms were reforms Louis XVI tried to pass himself during his reign, but was blocked by the Parliament of Paris and the nobles. He didn't try to undermine the reforms.. he went along with them, over and over. He only decided enough was enough and fled for a royalist stronghold when it became clear that mob rule had replaced any form of actual governing. Even after that point, he went along with the Constitution, followed it to the letter, told his brothers to stop trying to raise armies to invade France, issued a proclamation that any foreign or emigre armies would be considered invaders and treasonous (pissing off Fersen & the European powers) etc etc. He went along with the revolution so long that it killed him.

It's the truth. Obviously, like almost all movements, it technically had supporters everywhere, but it was mostly concentrated around Brittany (which, by the way, is today the most leftist region of France).
>We(True French) crushed you(Cuckrisians) and your Commune, once for all.
That's not even the same revolution.

>Noyade de Nantes
>Grande et Petite Terreur
The drowning was part of the reign of terror, so naming it specifically is redundant. The reign of terror was a good thing and necessary to purify France of its traitors.

"Vous avez voulu une République ; si vous ne voulez point en même temps ce qui la constitue, elle ensevelirait le peuple sous ses débris. Ce qui constitue une République, c'est la destruction totale de ce qui lui est opposé."
Saint-Just

>muh the revolution was on the side of the French !
>muh the revolution was done willingly by them !
*ten second later*
>It is normal to opress, rape, and kill people who never asked for that and did nothing to deserve such madness !
>Filthy traitors ! If they were executed, serve them right !

It's a nice cognitive dissonance you got there

>The reign of terror was a good thing and necessary to purify France of its traitors.

Most of the people murdered during the Reign of Terror were peasants who were unhappy with the revolution because it had led to excessive violence, continued food shortages, restricted freedoms, and the destruction of the church; former nobles unlucky enough to have stayed in France, either because they initially supported the ideals of the revolution or they were too old and frail to leave; and clergy who refused to commit heresy.

The "it was PURIFICATION OF TRAITORS" is bull.

>Daily reminder: the french revolution was the most shit tier event in human history.

We know

>atheism smells like the grave
ftfy

>>It is normal to opress, rape, and kill people who never asked for that and did nothing to deserve such madness !
Strawman. Nobody said that. Its normal to punish people who actively fight against your regime, which is why the terror and the Vendée war happened.
Firstly, I have to object with your use of the word "murdered". By definition a murder is an unlawful killing, which wasn't the case with most executions.

Secondly, of course most people executed are going to be peasants, because that was simply the largest demographic of France at the time. It would make no sense to spare traitors just because they're poor. It's also wrong to say that "innocent" nobles who just happened to be there were indiscriminately killed. Many of them who joined the side of the republicans weren't killed and even attained positions of power in the regime.
It was objectively the most glorious event in human History. It was something new and the movement was so powerful that it managed to constantly beat gigantic coalitions against it for 2 decades. Even though they failed in the end, they left a mark in Europe that changed it permanently.

>The reign of terror was a good thing and necessary to purify France of its traitors
Wew lad

>drowning innocent women and children and religious clergy is a good thing

So edgy.

Also DAMN THESE NUNS for their horrible crime of... wanting to practice their religion and continue to serve their community!

You talk like a communist.
You wouldn't happen to be a communist would you?

It's the truth.
It was a bit unfortunate that it had to happen, but the entire region was in a state of insurrection. That kind of killing happened throughout all of History during wars. Kings killed their fair share of women and children too.
I consider myself a collectivist but not a communist. I like several regimes in History and the Committee of Public Safety is one of my favorites. They were trying to build a new society based on the idea of a New Man, much like Germany and the USSR later on.

I don't think you know what cognitive dissonance means. There is no contradiction in what he said. You may disagree with it, but none of it involves cognitive dissonance.

>It was objectively the most glorious event in human History.

Yes, the glory of mass execution, the destruction of everything held sacred for thousands of years, just so some freemasons can push their agenda.

> they left a mark in Europe that changed it permanently.

I hope you enjoy it when Jamal rapes your wife for your progressive values, the same values that the revolution pushed for. The ultimate slippery slope.

>The "it was PURIFICATION OF TRAITORS" is bull.
Except the majority of people who were executed during the Terror were arrested while engaged in armed insurrection against the nation.

Just because a revolutionary government sanctions it doesn't mean it's not a murder. Many revolutionaries called the September Massacres "executions" rather than murders, too.

>It's also wrong to say that "innocent" nobles who just happened to be there were indiscriminately killed.

Why do you put "innocent" in quotation marks? There are plenty of nobles who were murdered because of their former connection to the ancien Regime rather than any actual action against the revolution.

>I hope you enjoy it when Jamal rapes your wife for your progressive values
Idiotic.
>French Revolution happens
>for two centuries after, no mass immigration to Europe
>mass immigration starts
>THE FRENCH REVOLUTION DID THIS!
Not anything that happened in the intervening time, no, something that happened two hundred years earlier.

>It was a bit unfortunate that it had to happen

It's a "bit unfortunate" that innocent women were murdered for their faith? It didn't HAVE to happen. They didn't even speak out against the revolution! They just wanted to live and worship in their convent and serve their community as they had for years.

>Kings killed their fair share of women and children too.

Yeah, Louis XVI was just slaughtering children left and right. Oh wait.

>There are plenty of nobles who were murdered because of their former connection to the ancien Regime
Implying that's bad

>Not anything that happened in the intervening time, no, something that happened two hundred years earlier.

Liberalism is a cancer, it has plagued every generation, it exploded after your revolution.

>Except the majority of people who were executed during the Terror were arrested while engaged in armed insurrection against the nation.

Not in Paris.

This is objectively true but Europoors with an inferiority complex will never admit it

Oh, so you're just an edgy fuck. Well, have fun with that!

>Yes, the glory of mass execution, the destruction of everything held sacred for thousands of years, just so some freemasons can push their agenda.
If by "everything held sacred" you mean the catholic church specifically, then you're right. They definitely wanted to replace catholicism by a different religion. Otherwise, French culture wasn't really hurt. As for executions, they were generally legitimate even though abuse happened, like it always does in war.

>I hope you enjoy it when Jamal rapes your wife for your progressive values, the same values that the revolution pushed for. The ultimate slippery slope.
Very little to do with the French revolution. This kind of stuff started happening throughout the entirety of Western Europe and North America, even among countries that still have their monarchs. It's a massive problem, but the original French revolutionaries would have never done things that way.
>Just because a revolutionary government sanctions it doesn't mean it's not a murder.
It does by definition.

>Why do you put "innocent" in quotation marks? There are plenty of nobles who were murdered because of their former connection to the ancien Regime rather than any actual action against the revolution.
Because nobles had been oppressing everyone else forever. This is one of the very few cases where I think that "guilty until proven innocent" is legit. If they didn't outright openly support the revolution, then it was fair to assume that they were on the side of the reactionaries since it just made complete sense for them to be if they didn't want to lose their institutional privilege.
>They didn't even speak out against the revolution!
Do you have any proof of that? It's likely that they did.

>Yeah, Louis XVI was just slaughtering children left and right. Oh wait.
He didn't represent every monarchs in History.

>Yeah, Louis XVI was just slaughtering children left and right. Oh wait.
The opponents of the Revolution certainly were. The Russians killed more people in Praga (suburb of Warsaw) on the a single day on 4 November 1794 then were killed in the entirety of the Terror. Likewise the British killed more in the 4 months of the Irish rebellion of 1798 than were killed in the year of the Terror, in a country with a much smaller population.

>im a pleb an i enjoy it

god i love peasants

>Because nobles had been oppressing everyone else forever.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS? TO PEOPLE THINK """""NOBLES"""""" WORE JEWELS AND CROWNS AND STEPPED ON PEOPLE EVERY DAY?

Except that nationalism, the main opposition to mass immigration, comes from the French Revolution too.

The nobility of ancien regime Europe were the original globalists.

Class of nobles deserved French Revolution

Why is that a relevant consideration? Barely any of the killings in the Terror happened in Paris

>do people actually believe this strawman I just pulled out of my ass?
I think you know the answer.

They had privilege given to them by law, which they gave to themselves since they happen to have the most power. That alone is oppression by definition. They used those laws and nepotism to get rich on the work of the lower classes.

I admit that the nobility made sense in the middle-age since feudalism was a reaction to the collapse of society, and nobles back then were actually risking their lives on the battlefield to protect their subjects. This wasn't true anymore in the 18th century. They had just become parasites and needed to go.

This is what Cuckristians believe

Genuine French, which mean from the countryside don't believe this BS,cause we know how the Revolutionaries oppresed our people and destroyed our cultures and our languages.

>They used those laws and nepotism to get rich on the work of the lower classes.

Everyone ever since the beginning of time

>Genuine French
>destroyed our cultures and our languages
So the genuine French were the people who didn't speak French and weren't a part of French culture? Really makes you think

Edgy

>Language
>People

>Parisian dialect
>French

As the saying goes : Le Tourangeau est le Français le plus pur :)

English Civil War was probably worse because it affected real people, and set all the rest in motion, but the French one is certainly up there.

>The American Revolution was the only good one.
Best of a bad lot, perhaps, but you're still setting the bar pretty low when you're praising a bunch of dicks who were too Jewish to pay what they owed, and then wanted to make themselves kings.

>just so some freemasons can push their agenda.

Is this supposed to be Evola?

Pretty much this.

>Nobles don't have to pay taxes
>Can buy political favor and positions in the government
>Marry other nobles to keep the wealth moving around in similar circles and guarantee political backing
>Use your money, power, and connections to kill any kind of reform
>Directly profit from food shortages by selling your grain and huge mark ups in other provinces

This was completely unsustainable, even if you're a fan of elitism.

What does the Russian massacre of Praga in November 1794 have to do with Louis XVI? Or the counterrevolutionaries in the French Revolution?

Must be. Nobody else is ridiculous enough to wear a monocle seriously

It shows that the Revolutionaries were hardly unique in the "killing people" department for their time, and thus puts the hysteria about muh Terror into perspective.

Also, you do realize the context for the Reign of Terror was the foreign invasion of France, right? The Russians weren't involved at that time, but the countries that were weren't any different. The Prussians and Austrians promised to execute the entire city of Paris.

That's because the American Revolution wasn't really a revolution in the modern sense, but a restoration of the state of affairs in colonial America before George III tried to expand the power of the British monarchy there. It was a revolt against centralization of political power, based on traditional rights and customs, such as the "Rights of Englishmen", while the French and Russian Revolutions were about centralizing political power in the name of an utopian future.

Any person who bases their political actions in the present upon an imaginary future, and therefore becomes the judge of his own actions, is a psychopath.

>Any person who bases their political actions in the present upon an imaginary future, and therefore becomes the judge of his own actions, is a psychopath.
So literally everyone?

No, only liberals, progressives and communists.

All political action is necessarily based on creating some better future state. If people didn't think their politics would make things better (however defined), they wouldn't get involved in politics at all

Just because some people delude themselves into thinking their imaginary utopias existed in the past as well as in the future, doesn't make them any different from those who don't

>Do you have any proof of that? It's likely that they did.

The reason they were arrested is because someone found out they said a Sacred Heart of Jesus prayer for the soul of Louis XVI after his execution. They continued to live a convent-style life despite the revolutionary government banning it.

>He didn't represent every monarchs in History.

So what do those other monarchs have to do with you condoning the murder of children during the Reign of Terror?

>The reason they were arrested is because someone found out they said a Sacred Heart of Jesus prayer for the soul of Louis XVI after his execution. They continued to live a convent-style life despite the revolutionary government banning it.
Ah, so because they were committing a crime and expressing support for the ancient regime.

>So what do those other monarchs have to do with you condoning the murder of children during the Reign of Terror?
I'm not condoning it, I said it was unfortunate, but that these things just happen in wartime and have little to do with republican ideals specifically.

>All political action is necessarily based on creating some better future state.

You don't understand. I'm not talking about incremental improving a society, I'm talking about people who have an entire future society planned in their heads and they desire absolute power to implement their plans to change the entire society and even humanity.

See this guy >They were trying to build a new society based on the idea of a New Man, much like Germany and the USSR later on.

No one outside of the revolutionary movement (liberalism, radicalism, communism etc) thinks like that. Not even most social democrats. Not even Christians, they may want to create a new man in order to create a new society, but they don't want to create a new society so they can get a new man, which is the basis of the revolutionary mentality.

>George III tried
U wot, m8?

The first massacres (including children) in Vendee were committed by the counter-revolutionary forces (at Machecoul)

>It shows that the Revolutionaries were hardly unique in the "killing people" department for their time, and thus puts the hysteria about muh Terror into perspective.

So it's okay that the Revolutionaries murdered innocent people, because other people have done it too?

>Expressing support for the ancien* regime

Nuns saying a prayer for someone who died is now "expressing support for the ancien* regime"?

Their "crime" was wanting to practice their religion. Why should they be executed for that?

>Nuns saying a prayer for someone who died is now "expressing support for the ancien* regime"?
Yes. It's like if you had a bunch of imams praying for Osama when he died. It would be pretty safe to assume that they support Islamic terrorism.

That's wrong though. Even people who support only incremental change do so with some vision of what they would like future society to look like. Just because it happens to be not as different from the current one, doesn't mean it's not there. All reform has to moving in some direction, towards some goal.

Anyway, the French Revolutionaries did not "have an entire future society planned in their heads and they desire absolute power to implement their plans to change the entire society and even humanity". That honestly describes their reactionary opponents better. The Revolutionaries had no consistent plan, they basically made shit up as they went along.

Also, they were not nearly as different from the American Revolutionaries as you say. The French Revolutionaries also talked a lot about restoring ancient liberties which supposedly existed in the distant past, among the old Gauls and Franks. They were influenced by Rousseau, remember, who was all about idealizing the past, before the nasty influence of society

That is not what that post says. Learn to read.

As a response to initial violence from Republican forces during a protest against conscription.

And whose fault does it lay with? The bourgeoisie who were at first just trying to push for some reforms, or the nobility who refused to be part of a modern state and forced the bourgeoisie to take radical measures they didn't have the cultural traditions for.

If the french king had accepted a limited monarchy it never would have went so far

>If the french king had accepted a limited monarchy it never would have went so far
You can't possibly be this naive.

Not an argument

Everything became a crime to the French revolutionaries. Madame Elisabeth was accused--the horror--of bandaging the wounds of (revolutionary, mind you) National Guard soldiers injured during the Champ de Mars massacre. Marie Antoinette was accused of opening the door to the palace during the flight to Montmedy, and opening that door apparently proved that she directed Louis XVI in his actions that night.

A protest that was actually a violent riot

>Catholic nuns saying a prayer for an executed Louis XVI who died still professing his Catholic faith is the same as imams praying for Osama bin Laden and supporting Islamic terrorism

oh Veeky Forums you... you are something.

>People of one religion praying for a political figure from that religion
>People of another religion praying for a political figure from their religion
Seems pretty similar to me.

It let to Napoleon.
Which lead to Napoleon III
Which lead the the Germans BTFO France for Alsace.
Which lead to WWI
Which lead to WW2.

Which honestly it was the Americans fault for bankrupting France for the American revolution.

Good job America! You caused all of Europe's conflict for the last 200 years.

Amour à partir de Grece et Pologne!

To add insult to injury the Americans refused to pay back their debts after Napoleon took over.

Louis XVI accepted the limited monarchy initially. He accepted so much the European royal powers were getting pissed off at him. The factions within the revolution itself--those who wanted a Constitutional monarchy like England, those who wanted a Constitutional "monarchy" which is more like the modern British monarchy today where the royal family are for show and nothing else, and those who didn't want a monarchy at all--could not reconcile themselves, and thus hope to reconcile with the king, and so France ended up having no proper government at all. Nothing was working the way it was supposed to because there was no control.

Do you consider the October Days of 1789 a violent riot? Do you consider the mob on the Tuileries in June 1792 a violent riot?

Yes? They objectively were. What is your point?

Technically the American revolution was a violent riot. Had no legal basis in British system.